Before & After

[misstwinklytoes]

You might try warming up the first picture a little. It looks like a snapshot compared to the other and that might take some of the attention off the lighting.

 

[David-Wayne]

The 2nd photo obviously looks way better. but very different. In the furute I'd say work really hard on getting them to keep the same position. The most critical people of your work will the the women they are trying to sell the makeup to. And I think that changing position is a big one. Of course the background, which is a dead horse and i wont beat it. In all honesty the photos are so different that its obvious that she is trying to look really bad, and, forgive me for saying, that feel kinda like an insult (as the makeup buyer{which I'm not, but I am a genenral consumer}) that I'm expected to believe that makeup did all that.
Your work is great, dont get me wrong, but the differences "from the makeup" need to be subtle, but easily noticed. You went from ugly betty to a glamour shot. I think its just a bit too much. Next time try to keep her closer to the same position, same smile and maybe do an extra shot as a close up for an extra "after" shot. It'll be a little easier to believe that its makeup and not the photographers superior lighting or editing skill

 

[vtf]

Somehow I get on those infomercials who show before and after pictures, whether its weight loss or acne creams or whatever, my first reaction is to search for differences in angles, lighting, clothing worn, how its worn, back ground, before I even consider it to be an actual representation. I know I am a skeptic but with the scams out there I tend to disbelieve first.
I think it would've been better if picture one had same background and same angle, I still think you would've shown a great difference in the make up. These have a feel of deception to me even though none was intended.
I was specifically asked to "not do anything fancy to make them look better" so as to showcase the makeup. I don't think I could have gotten the shot any more ... for lack of a better term "ugly".
This statement to me confirms its not the makeup making the difference.
I also agree that its a shame the cleavage in picture 2 is covered.

 

[RauschPhotography]

I don't know much about what Mary Kay was going for but I think it'd be a more honest representation if the before/after were from the same angles, both head-on shots.

 

[FattyMcJ]

Wow, lots of replies! Thanks to all who posted!

I see what you're all saying about the obvious differences in lighting and white balance. The 2nd is warmer vs. the first which is cold. The backgrounds are different tones, etc. It all adds up to a very distinct change, and not necessarily a good one. That would be my inexperience with this type of thing, showing through. I thought it would be a good thing to have the shots "so different"...guess not. Live and learn!

As far as angles, yeah...that's my fault again. I had them sit straight on facing me for the first shots because I knew it would look "bad" in terms of composition. Maybe that was a poor choice.

I'm doing another photo shoot this weekend for Mary Kay, so I'll remember not to make the before shots quite so horrible.

Again, thank you to all who commented, in every comment I learn something. :thumbup:

 

[Pubb]

I think you did a nice job. I am sure your clients are very happy.

What I do hate is before and after pictures in general. In my opinion before and after should be same clothes same pose same processing and then that would showcase the different a product can make. OK thats it for ranting.

Once again your work is nice and you captured exactly what I think Mary Kay wanted to see.

 

[PerfectlyFlawed]

Yes, healing tool is your best friend. haha

 

[Nautifish]

Agree with PUB.....Being in the Hair and cosmetic field for allmost twenty years i cannot beleive no effort was made with the models hair. To me it is very distracting looks greasy and not attractive at all.
I understand it is about the Makeup which is good but why do half a job?:er: